> From: Jim Burnes [jburnes@savvis.net]

   > Bait and switch is probably not the right term.  Let
   > me think of a better term.  How about fraud.
   > Promising voters special favors if he is elected.
   > But thats the Hatch Act violation and I digress.

   Hmm ... I'm thinking on an empty stomach (no lunch
   yet), so I am not quite sure, but my gut feeling (no
   pun intended) is that you have a point ...

   > > Please note that it is not clear yet whether this
   > > particular corner case of the law is well-defined.
   > > The courts will decide that.  The courts may very
   > > well be required to void this appointment for some
   > > important Constitutional reason.

   > > Who knows?

   > I would say, 'case law be damned'.  A guy who doesn't
   > exist can't take office.  If he doesn't take office,
   > he can't be replaced.

   I can sympathize with that viewpoint, but I assert that
   it is just one viewpoint among many legitimate ones.  I
   do not believe this was actually written into the law,
   but if someone proves conclusively to the courts that
   the intent was already in the law, I have no problems
   with that.

   > You are assuming that the bulk
   > of the people who voted for Carnahan actually voted
   > for anyone who is a Democrat -- and that might well
   > be so.

   Um ... actually no.  I assert that the bulk of the
   people voted for his wife, because they were assured
   that she would take the seat.

   If someone else was appointed instead of her, I would
   say that there was bait and switch, and no matter how
   popular that person might be (perhaps even more popular
   than she was in the election), this change would fraud
   for sure.

   > But I doubt the Federal Election Commision will think
   > much of a ballot where 'you vote Democratic -- we'll
   > fill in the blank' is a legitimate vote.

   I agree with your statement here except that I did not
   make that specific claim of the generic vote for
   Democrats.

   Ern